NANDLAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIVE of the appellants Nand Lal, his father Bhola Nath Verma, two sibling brothers Ganga Ram and Suraj Prasad Verma and Devi Prasad Verma son of Ganga Ram, were tried by Vth Additional Sessions, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No.303 of 1980, State Vs. Nand Lal & others, and finding their guilt established beyond any shadow of doubt, trial Judge convicted them for offences under Sections 147, 452, 436/149 IPC and impose sentences of one year R.I. to each, of the accused for each of the offences under Sections 147 and 452 IPC and two years R.I. to each one of them under Sections 436/149 IPC vide impugned judgement and order dated 13th March 1981, which conviction and sentence has now been challenged in the instant appeal.

(2.) STATED in bird eye view, prosecution charges against these appellants were that on 25.2.1979 at 11.00 a.m. they by forming an unlawful assembly raided the shop of Garibullah and at the instigation of appellant Ganga Ram appellant Bhola Halwai sprinkled kerosene oil inside Garibullah's shop which thereafter was torched by appellants Ganga Ram and Nand Lal. Incident attracted witnesses Moti Pasi, Mohd. Arman, Ramashanker Singh, Karimullah, Dr. Bhagauti Prasad, Munni Lal Harijan and Kailash Nath, who all doused the fire by throwing water. As a result of ablazing the shop, in which Garibullah was carrying plastic shoe business, complainant suffered a loss of Rs.1000/-. F.I.R. of the incident was got scribed from Asfaq by informant P.W.1 Mohd. Ishaque, son of Garibullah, who thereafter lodged it at police station Suriyawan Ghyanpur, district Varanasi (now district Bhadoi/Sant Ravidas Nagar) the same day at 11.45 a.m. covering a distance of about one furlong.

(3.) I have heard Sri S.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned AGA in opposition. Appellant's counsel castigated the impugned judgement by contending that the conviction of the appellants is bad in law and is not supported by evidences on record. He further submitted that since there was enmity and the parties wanted the shop in question to be vacated, per chance the shop was gutted in fire and taking its advantage a false case was cooked up against the appellants nailing them for the aforesaid offences. It was further submitted that the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained as none of fact witnesses are reliable. Lastly it was contended that the incident is alleged to have occurred on 25.2.1979 and more than 32 years have gone by and therefore, appellants should not be sent to jail to serve out remaining part of their sentence after such an enormous period. He further submitted that on the date of the incident most of the appellants were in their youth and now they have settled in their lives without any further criminal proclivity or subsequent involvement in any crime and since they belong to one family, their sentence be reduced suitably.